FOOT-NOTES

by
John S. Wilson

Delivered to
The Chicago Literary Club
November 28, 1994

Foot-note is defined in the dictionary as "a note of comment or reference at the bottom of a page." Or "an additional comment, remark, etc..." Foot-notes may often be overlooked when we are in a hurry and do not concern ourselves with sources, Sometimes they are distracting; as when looking up the meaning of a word in the dictionary and finding it necessary to look up the meaning of the defining word or words. In the case of foot-notes they can lead one from a main event to an obscure occurrence and they can also shed clarity on a hitherto confusing situation.

This is the reason for the title of this paper. The subject was discovered by accident, the event is obscure and is significant but it is also a reminder of historical repetitions

Since the end of the Cold War we have seen too much evidence of man's inhumanity to man with the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia being only one, although an outstanding example. We abhor what is being shown on our TV screens whether it is death by butchering, torture, starvation, or some other grisly method.

.In our own lifetime we have lived through the holocaust in Europe and the deportation of Japanese-Americans during World War II. This last mentioned event should remind us that even the most enlightened of us are capable of inflicting injustice under the stress of circumstances.

The following is another such example.

On September 10, in a previous century, under orders of the Supreme Executive Council, twenty men were forcibly removed from their homes and, under military escort were deported to a neighboring commonwealth for an indefinite period. There were no hearings or trials. These men had refused to swear or affirm allegiance to the commonwealth. An invading army was threatening to occupy the capital city. These men were considered subversive and dangerous to the safety of the commonwealth. The legislature of the central government had suggested hearings be held. The Supreme Executive Council responded that under the present situation there wasn't time for lengthy hearings. The Council, moreover, was only responding to the request of the central government.

Six months later a new president of the Supreme Executive Council, and a son of one of the exiles, petitioned the central government's president for authority over the exiles being held in the neighboring commonwealth. The enemy had evacuated the capital city and the commonwealth could now proceed with the trials of these exiles. The legislature of the central government granted this petition and the prisoners were released on April 27.

There were no trials or hearings or any attempt at compensation or restitution. Two of the exiles had died during this six months period. This does not mean that their material comforts were neglected. Except for being separated from their friends and families, they were not otherwise mistreated and were not held incommunicado.

I was reminded of this shabby chapter in our history by a recent item in The Wall Street Journal about the forcible evacuation from the west coast of California and internment of 112,000 Japanese-American citizens and aliens of Japanese ancestry as "national security risks." This happened in 1942, more than 50 years ago, and only recently has Congress seen fit to authorize any form of restitution.

The incident of the twenty men that I described also involved the United States. The year was 1777, the two commonwealths were Pennsylvania and Virginia. The victims were Philadelphia Quakers. There alleged crimes were non-support of the independence movement from Great Britain.

Why were these twenty men deported without trials or hearings? They had not done anything so what would be the point of a hearing? There was, however, fear that they might do something. That raises the question; why were they so mistrusted? The answer must be found in a review of the situation as it existed at that time.

There is a striking analogy to the deportation of the Japanese-Americans in 1942. Pearl Harbor had been bombed the previous December and our once proud and mighty Pacific fleet had been so severely damaged that there was a general apprehension in this country that we might be at the mercy of the forces of the Rising Sun.

Were not able to retaliate immediately from the blows of Pearl Harbor, but we could take out our wrath on any individuals within our borders who, because of their national origins and strategic locations, might possibly render further harm to our ability to fight back.

The Quakers of Philadelphia were in a similar position at this particular point in the American Revolution. They were firm and sincere pacifists who did not believe in taking an oath of allegiance and were committed to strict neutrality. During the recent crisis they had not committed any subversive acts that would hamper the cause of Independence. At the same time, they had not rendered any support for the movement. At a meeting of the Sufferings in December of 1776 they had issued public testimony charging their members "to pay all humble and dutiful obedience unto the king and his ministers."



This attitude could be and was tolerated as long as there was no immediate danger from the enemy. By September, 1777, however, the situation was rapidly deteriorating and there was immediate danger. The British commander, General Lord Howe and his well armed and well trained army, was moving rapidly toward Philadelphia with nothing to stop an imminent occupation of the capital city of the new nation. Members of the Continental Congress and the Pennsylvania legislature were very nervous and frustrated over their inability to do anything more than watch the inevitable and be ready to flee the city before they were captured.

This deterioration of the military situation in the Philadelphia area appeared to trigger some desperate and hysterical efforts to do something, anything! On August 28, 1777, the Continental Congress passed a resolution recommending that the Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania immediately arrest and hold eleven prominent Quakers and "all such papers in their possession as may be of a political nature." It further recommended the arrest of other Quakers and any other people in Pennsylvania and in other states whose "general conduct and conversation has appeared to be opposed to the American cause."

The Continental Congress, in addition to the stress of imminent invasion, was reacting to (or using it as an excuse) a letter received from General Sullivan, dated August 25, from Hanover, New Jersey. This letter, along with accompanying documents, supposedly implicated the Quakers on the collection of military intelligence on American military strength and forwarding this information to the British. Numerous anomalies in Sullivan's report were ignored that on a second glance should have given reasonable persons pause. The report of the committee of Congress, on which the resolution of August 28 was based, also called its members attention to the published Quaker testimony of the previous December. The Committee report concerned itself with what the Quakers might do in the future because they had not, up to this point, committed any overt acts to assist the enemy. As the responsible government or body for waging a successful war against the British, it's members would be highly sensitive to any person or group that, by it's indifferent attitude to the cause, seemed to stand in the way of the country's objectives.

During the events leading up to the American Revolution and independence from Great Britain, the Quakers had remained aloof by policy and practice. Due to their past prominence in political matters and their general identity with the more affluent members of society, the Philadelphia Quakers suffered more during the revolution than other members of the Society of Friends in rural Pennsylvania or in the other colonies/states. One reason for this may have been that they were looked on as "men of property" by the "lower classes" in Philadelphia. With very few exceptions, the new Assembly and government under the constitution of 1776 (adopted less than a year before) was controlled by these "lower classes" and men from the western part of the state who, in the past had not looked kindly upon "men of property." The Quakers were also faced with a new attitude to which they were not prepared to address or respond. This attitude found its expression in the premise that if you did not support the revolution and independence, you were opposed to it and there was no room for anyone with a passive or neutral stance. The Quakers refused to participate in military service and they refused to pay taxes because the money would be used for waging war. In Bucks County they would refuse to sell or grind grain for the troops of Washington wintering in nearby Valley Forge. They also refused to accept the new Continental currency because it had been issued for war purposes. They also considered it an illegal and confiscatory tax because of its rapid depreciation in value.

A compelling reason for the members of the Society of Friends to maintain the policy of aloofness was the anticipation and belief in a final convulsion. The turmoil between the colonists and the British government seemed like a convincing signal of the impending convulsion. Their best interests would be served be avoiding involvement and preparing for the Society of Friends to become the universal church.

Public testimony supporting the king and his ministers, coupled with the action of non-support of the anti-British actions of the new government would under the most favorable circumstances, create a certain amount of tension between those who had gone out on a limb and possibly were risking their lives in support of what they felt was a just and noble cause on the one hand and those who were indifferent or who preferred and even urged the status quo. The anti-British groups, especially the most militant, insisted on active support for their cause and considered those not providing this support as enemies of the cause. In addition, many of these people considered the Quakers in a class with those same elements they considered their long-time political enemies. The difference between Quakers and Tories became less distinct until the two terms became "virtually synonymous."

One of the reasons for singling out the Quakers for eviction was that there was no risk involved. Because of the policy of non-violence, Quakers were ideal targets for persecution, even from their earliest days in the previous century. Violence of any sort was forbidden by any members of the Society of Friends. None of the members of the Pennsylvania government or the Continental Congress would have to be concerned about violent reprisals by this particular injured party.

Any attempt, on the other hand, to identify and exile those loyalists actively supporting King George III would have met with severe retribution once the invading army had occupied Philadelphia.

This action of the Continental Congress would appear to be an inappropriate interference and assertion of sovereignty over one of its thirteen independent and sovereign states. Under normal circumstances the government of Pennsylvania would have ignored such an intrusion in the affairs of their state. They had in the past and would in the future on the grounds that the central government had no authority over how its member states dealt with its people.

This was not a normal situation. Both governing bodies were in the same threatened area. As a matter of fact they both occupied the same building. On the first floor was the Continental Congress with the government of Pennsylvania occupying the second floor. For this reason constant communication transpired between these two governments and its members knew each other well. Many of them had become good friends. A further and more compelling reason for the government of Pennsylvania to acquiesce to the resolution of the Continental Congress was that a substantial majority of its members agreed with the Continental Congress and used the resolution as an excuse for taking action against the Quakers. It also, in the name of carrying out the terms of the resolution, added enough names to the list to bring the total number up to more than 40. Most of them were arrested within a few days. Just prior to being arrested, three prominent Quakers had written a letter to the Supreme Executive Council challenging its "Authority not grounded in law or reason to deprive us who are peaceable men and have never bore Arms, of our Liberty by a military force." A demand was also included for an "immediate hearing for all the prisoners." A petition, signed by more than 100 relatives and friends, was delivered the next day in support of the demand.

The Supreme Executive Council claimed that it was merely carrying out the wishes of Congress and, therefore, could take no action on behalf of the petitioners. When Congress recommended that hearings be conducted by the Supreme Executive Council, its response was that the current crisis did not permit the luxury of time-consuming hearings and "again urged Congress to handle the matter." The Supreme Executive Council was willing to free any prisoners willing to swear (or affirm) faithfulness and "true allegiance to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, as a free and independent state." Most of the persons refused on the grounds of being an ex post facto law which incriminated those innocent persons by the act of refusal. They then posed the question how the safety of the public could be guaranteed by a simple oath? Obviously, they continued, men of dubious character "will submit to any tests to cover their wicked and dangerous goals while we are such dangerous persons that society could only be persecuted by exile."

Some influential members of the Continental Congress being particularly nervous about the rapid advancement on Philadelphia by General Howe's army also had other reasons for being embarrassed and annoyed. They had counseled and helped with congressional resolutions and any other ways they could to put the present state government in power in the previous year. They were probably aware of the very thin support of the new government when the new constitution was submitted to the eligible voters for approval.

The Pennsylvania Constitution was the result of a convention ostensibly called for that purpose. The convention lasted from July 15, 1776 until September 28, 1776. The Continental Congress, meeting in the same building, had, by July 2, considered and voted for independence from Great Britain. By July 15, the Constitutional Convention had added to its constitution drafting duties by taking the place of the old Pennsylvania Assembly which could no longer convene a quorum, when the Whig members walked out and never returned. In other words, the Convention assumed or usurped the legislative and appointive powers of the defunct Assembly and, therefore, was the governing authority for the State of Pennsylvania. Another way of saying that a coup d'etat was committed.

The Provincial Conference leaders had gone to considerable lengths to ensure that delegates elected to the Constitutional Convention would exclude moderates (anyone not supportive of independence). This was done by widening the voting population to include militia members, age 21, who had lived in the state one year and had paid either provincial or county taxes; and all those who favored independence. A Test Oath was to be administered to all voters to prove that they would "support a government in this province on the authority of the people only." Conference members then agreed to the requirement of an oath of religious conformity for all the candidates for election to the Constitutional Convention. All deputies would have to "profess faith in God the Father and in Jesus Christ His eternal Son, andacknowledge the Holy Scripture of the Old and new Testaments to be given by divine inspiration."

On the day following the Provincial Conference, June 26, a James Cannon broadside made its appearance on the streets concerning a Pennsylvania Constitution. Declaring that the foundation of the new government "should be founded on more than the people's authority; it should be controlled by the people." In selecting convention delegates the broadside suggested that only people should be elected who were dedicated to the principles of annual ballot elections. Enemies of liberty were those who would, wherever possible, try to evade these conditions. Answering his own question, the only type of men suitable to the task of creating this constitution were those who had no other interest beyond the "common interest of mankind." Rich and prominent men were not to be trusted. There was a greater need for "honesty, common sense and plain understanding," than for "training, intelligence, and learning."

Coupled with the actions of the conference as previously described, the broadside served notice that candidates and elected delegates would be carefully scrutinized before their candidacies and elections would be certified. The oath requirement automatically eliminated all other voters who opposed independence, even if they were against the British. At the Provincial conference each county had one vote, giving the sparsely populated western counties greater proportionate weight than the more heavily populated eastern counties, and especially Philadelphia. These western counties also identified themselves with the radical political causes."

The membership of the Constitutional Convention bore a stark witness to the successful efforts of the radicals to obtain the most favorable composition of delegates for the type of constitution they hoped to create. The number of votes cast in the election for Constitutional Convention delegates was 2,500 out of a potential 50,000 to 60,000, less than 5%. In view of the limitations imposed by the Provincial Conference on who could vote, this limited number of votes is not surprising. The Provincial Conference owed its existence, to a large extent, to the pressure applied and assistance from the members of the Continental Congress. Occupancy of the same building in Philadelphia simplified communications between the two groups. Each body could and probably did take a number of cues from each other whenever it suited them. I imagine that this type of communications was fairly constant. Strongly influenced by the Continental Congress, almost to the extent that at least one historian called the Provincial Conference a "subsidiary of Congress", it served the purpose of Congress by calling a Constitutional convention and "effecting a separation from Great Britain."

The relevant area of the 1776 Pennsylvania Constitution, as far as this discussion is concerned, was that the supreme power was placed in a unicameral legislature. This was not a deviation from its colonial predecessor which had had a unicameral legislature since 1701. The difference was that under the 1701 constitution the legislature was answerable to the King of England. Under the 1776 constitution the legislature was supreme, there was no higher authority for anyone to appeal, even though the new constitution recognized the Continental Congress as a superior authority. In practice, however, the recognition of that superiority was only in effect when it suited the interests of the Pennsylvania legislature. It was an umbrella under which to hide when tough decisions had to be faced. The alleged authority of the Continental Congress was, therefore, actually an inferiority, no different than with the other twelve original states.

So, less than a year later, both governments faced the same dilemma, equally helpless to halt or delay the inevitable British advance and occupation. Letters of some members of the Continental Congress reveal the extent of bitter and vindictive feelings the actions of the Quakers inspired. James Lovell to Joseph Trumbull, Philadelphia, September 7, 1776.

Had there been due Vigour in this Government, Congress would not have been obliged to have pointed out individuals of this State for Arrest. But the safety of the Union called for it. And you may depend upon it every step we have taken can be handsomely defended Read the hypocritical Cant of these Days. Hear the Appeal to the Freemen of Pennsylvania, and Quotations from the Bill of Rights of this Independent State, from Wretches who will not affirm themselves faithful Subjects of it and who since the Declaration of Independence complain in the Registries of their meetings of Sufferings, that they are forced to aid in a War against Government.



Edward Rutledge to Robert R. Livingston, Philadelphia, October 2, 1776.

We have great reason to think that the Quakers have determined to refuse our currency. If they make a point of it, we must make a point of hanging them, which will bring on a storm that will take the wisdom of our wise men to direct.

Henry Laurens to John Lewis Gervais, September 5.1777.

Five hours debating one silly point whether certain persons chiefly Quakers Who have given the Strongest proof which in these times can be expected of The avowed attachment to the cause of our enemies, who have peremptorily

Refused to take an Oath or affirmation of Allegiance to the state or give a Parole to the Executive power, should have a hearing in their own defence.

The hearing which they aim at is not intended, but a hearing they may have,

If they accept the mode prescribed. Congress have recommended to the Executive Council to hear what they have to allege "for removing suspicion That they are Enemies to the Independence of the United States."

I am mistaken if by this shifting ground the Cry of persecution will not be raised ten times higher and that Congress will eventually make ridiculous figures; And end the business relative to the Quakers and others self disaffected

by recommending to confine at an appointed place, Stanton in Virginia, all the mischievous and active ones who shall refuse to take the Oath of affirmation of Allegiance to the State.

Richard Henry Lee to the Governor of Virginia (Patrick Henry), Philadelphia, September 8, 1777.

The Quaker motto ought to be "Nos turba sumus," for if you attack one the whole Society is aroused. You will see by the inclosed testimonies a uniform, fixed Enmity to American measures, which with the universal ill fame of some capital persons, has occasioned the arrest of old Pemberton and several others to prevent their mischievous interposition in favor of the enemy at this critical moment, when the enemy's army is on its way herethey have taken infinite pains according to custom, to move Heaven and earth in their favor, and have transmitted copies of their indecent remonstrances over the country. Congress have, to prevent ill impressions, ordered their several inimical testimonies to be published in one Hand-bill. Altho' nothing can be more certain than that allegiance and protection are reciprocal duties, yet these men have the assurance to call for the protection of those laws and that Government which they expressly disclaim and refuse to give any of their allegiance to. There is no doubt but that they will endeavor by means of the "Friends" in Virginia, to make disturbance and raise discontent there, but this may serve to put you on your guardThis day Congress has proposed that the Quaker Tories should be sent to Staunton in Augusta. I hope you will have them well secured there for they are mischievous people.

John Adams to Mrs Adams, Philadelphia, Monday, September 8, 1777.

We have been obliged to attempt to humble the pride of some Jesuits, who call themselves Quakers, but who love money and land better than liberty or religion. The hypocrits are endeavoring to raise the cry of persecution, and to give this matter a religious turn, but they can't succeed. The world knows them and their communications. Actuated by a land-jobbing spirit like that of William Penn, they have been soliciting grants of immense regions of land on the Ohio. American independence has disappointed them which makes them hate it. Yet the dastards dare not avow their hatred to it, it seems.

John Adams to Mrs Adams, York Town, Pennsylvania, Tuesday, September 30, 1777.

All the apology that can be made for this part of the world is, that Mr. Howe's march From Elk to Philadelphia, was through the very regions of passive obedience. The Whole country through which he passed is inhabited by Quakers. There is not such Another body of Quakers in America, perhaps not in all the world

These letters are indeed revelations of the feelings the actions or non-actions of the Quakers inspired amongst some of the most prominent supporters of the cause. Richard Henry Lee of the Continental Congress reveals the extent and vindictive feelings the actions of the Quakers inspired. Richard Henry Lee was the member of the Continental Congress in the previous year to move that these colonies ought to be free and independent. He appears in subsequent chapters of the early history of the Unites States as one of the champions for state sovereignty. He will, like his fellow Virginian Patrick Henry, turn down an appointment as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 because he also smelled a rat. He was an eloquent and dedicated protector of individual liberties. and then there is John Adams! Who, in the name of justice, risked his whole career to represent the defending British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre trial!

It is tempting to exclaim, "SHAME, SHAME!" Unfortunately there is hardly a generation that does not have some inhumanity hook on which to hang its hat of righteousness. It only confirms the old saw of the gored ox.

As I have previously related, the prisoners were released on April 27, 1778 without a hearing or trial, or any attempt at restitution. Why was there no hearing or trial? Why was there no attempt at restitution or even recognition?

From the perspective of the victims, the answer is that it was against their religious beliefs to seek redress of their grievances and therefore the idea of restitution could not be considered.

From the perspective of the government of Pennsylvania, it was only obeying the wishes or commands of the Continental Congress, a "superior government" as described in their new constitution. Pennsylvania authorities had done nothing wrong. If any wrong had been committed, it must have been by the Continental Congress.

The Continental Congress, on further reflection, may have been ashamed of what took place. There is no record that I have discovered that it was. Officially it could say that it had no jurisdiction over the internal affairs of any of the 13 states and so had no authority to compel Pennsylvania to do what it did.

It was apparent that neither the members of the Pennsylvania government, nor the members of the Continental Congress were concerned about the fate of the Philadelphia Quakers. They had other things on their minds, such as winning the war against Great Britain for the Congress and the election of a new government in the state of Pennsylvania. Both parties successfully swept the problem under the rug and it never came back to haunt any member's future aspirations. Part of the reason for this is probably due to the relatively minor impact it had on the cause and also the limited ill effect on the victims.

This was an infant nation; not yet two years old by the time the prisoners were released in April of 1778. the nation had gone from one mistake to another and was able to muddle through by making enough correct decisions and being well assisted by the ineptitude of its opponent. It is entirely possible that both governments, on sober and more leisurely reflection, realized that the exiling of these Quakers was a mistake and the best thing to do was to act as if it had never happened. the policy and nature of the victims made this possible and full advantage was taken of it.

The incident was pretty insignificant with an outcome that was relatively benign compared to other examples that readily come to mind. we don't have to look beyond our borders, but just consider the record of broken treaties, confinements to reservations and a "look the other way" policy when massacres of Indians occurred. the institution of slavery was bad enough, but the history of black discrimination since the Emancipation Proclamation is not one we contemplate with pride and satisfaction. There are other examples, but that is not the point.

The sad fact is that no group of people has been immune to the temptations of persecution. It is also a sad fact that no judicial or government system has been capable of guaranteeing the safety of minority groups under certain conditions.

The treaty on Human Rights, known as the Helsinki Accord of 1975, was only one of many international attempts to solve this problem. One of the earliest attempts after the establishment of the United Nations in 1945 was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted and proclaimed by the General Assembly on December 10, 1948. Again, eighteen years later on December 16, 1966, the International Covenant on civil and Political Rights was adopted by resolution #2200A. All of these resolutions and treaties contain more than adequate protections for groups and individuals. But nowhere can there be found the adequate universal authority to guarantee any of them. I do not mean to imply that these events are wastes of time and/or exercises in futility. Progress has been made and it does no harm to "dream the impossible dream." Without those dreams there would be no impetus towards improvements or positive changes in the status quo.

Unfortunately, lurking beneath each individual's reasonableness and nobility is a strong tendency to follow the group without asking oneself these questions.

Is this my idea?

Am I doing it because I think it is right?

Or am I doing it because I was told to do it and everybody else is doing it?

Return to PAPERS
Return to Main Menu